Linus Fresz DNF (24.00) FMC mean

[EMI]

One of the rare situations where losing a WR completes your profile.

Not really, you won't get the field "History of Continental Records" when you lose a WR.

 

[biscuit]

Why does WR not also count as CR? That's stupid.

 

[TDM]

Why does WR not also count as CR? That's stupid.

The whole point of it is (if I understand correctly) to have a complete WCA profile. That means you need separate sections for WRs and CRs. World records do count as continental records, but they don't add a section to your profile, so don't contribute towards platinum memberships.

 

[biscuit]

The whole point of it is (if I understand correctly) to have a complete WCA profile. That means you need separate sections for WRs and CRs. World records do count as continental records, but they don't add a section to your profile, so don't contribute towards platinum memberships.

I get that, I'm saying that WR's don't count as CR's on the WCA site is dumb.

 

[Cale S]

I get that, I'm saying that WR's don't count as CR's on the WCA site is dumb.

That would mean WRs all appear twice on your page

 

[G2013]

wow, astonishing

 

[biscuit]

That would mean WRs all appear twice on your page

I don't see an issue with that.

 

[mycube]

I guess some of you could be interested in this:

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2020

I am happy that they finally decided about my WR. It was not really a good feeling to have this pending without knowing about what will happen.

Like they say I totally can understand their decision and won't be mad at anybody

 

[Cale S]

I guess some of you could be interested in this:

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2020

I am happy that they finally decided about my WR. It was not really a good feeling to have this pending without knowing about what will happen.

Like they say I totally can understand their decision and won't be mad at anybody

While that is somewhat unfortunate, I'm guessing it feels better than having a possibly illegitimate record.

And the change to FMC scrambles is a good thing, does anyone have more specific information about this?

 

[Laura O]

And the change to FMC scrambles is a good thing, does anyone have more specific information about this?

You can find the announcement for the recent TNoodle update here: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/posts/tnoodle-0-11-1

Every Fewest Moves scramble starts and ends with the moves "R' U' F" now. These moves are not related to the solved state of the cube, so in contrast to the "normal" scrambles used for other events (3x3x3, OH, etc.) it's unlikely that reversing the last moves of the scramble gives you a good start for a FMC solution.
As a side effect, the scrambles are also a bit longer (about 26 moves).

 

[mycube]

While that is somewhat unfortunate, I'm guessing it feels better than having a possibly illegitimate record.

Well I would not say it would be illegitimate if the decision would have been that it will stay as it is. When the board decides 'Yes the 21 is ok', what would be illegitimate about the WR?

 

[Cale S]

Well I would not say it would be illegitimate if the decision would have been that it will stay as it is. When the board decides 'Yes the 21 is ok', what would be illegitimate about the WR?

Yes, I just meant it was better than not having confirmation from the board.

 

[mycube]

Yes, I just meant it was better than not having confirmation from the board.

Ah yeah sure

 

[sqAree]

That's really good news, that they changed the scrambles now.

I hope you get another wr in fmc soon, stripping you of that record feels quite undeserved even though it might conform to the regulations.

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

So, if it's possible to DNF solves when every move can be explained if it is 'too similar' to the scramble, shouldn't there be a more precise definition of 'too similar'? How many moves need to be the same for this to apply? It seems unreasonable to DNF for the first move of the solution and scramble being the same, 11 moves in common is DNFed even if it was by accident, but where exactly is the line drawn in between these?

 

[Matt11111]

So, if it's possible to DNF solves when every move can be explained if it is 'too similar' to the scramble, shouldn't there be a more precise definition of 'too similar'? How many moves need to be the same for this to apply? It seems unreasonable to DNF for the first move of the solution and scramble being the same, 11 moves in common is DNFed even if it was by accident, but where exactly is the line drawn in between these?

That's a really good question, actually. I feel like FMC is a little broken when you realize that you accidentally started and ended the same way as the reverse scramble, then you get DNFed because similarity.

 

[Attila]

I just tried an interesting idea, which proves how it's possible to manipulate the previously used short scrambles.
For example, I use Linus's contested solution.


Inverse: F L2 D' B' D2 // R2 U2 L F2 L' F' U F2 // U' B2 U' L2 D' L2
First, I find a different solution for first 5 moves (F L2 D' B' D2)
1st solution: B D2 R2 U2 F B' R2 D B' D2 (10 moves)
Next 8 moves of the inverse scramble: R2 U2 L F2 L' F' U F2
2nd solution: R' U2 R' F' U F L F2 L' F (10 moves) (of Linus's solution)
Last 6 moves of inverse scramble: U' B2 U' L2 D' L2
3rd solution: D' R2 D' R2 U' B2 U' D ( 8 moves)
So, I have a 28 move solution, 1st, then 2nd, then 3rd:
1st: B D2 R2 U2 F B' R2 D B' D2
2nd: R' U2 R' F' U F L F2 L' F
3rd: D' R2 D' R2 U' B2 U' D
According with the WCA rules, is not same moves of scramble, Linus's explanation can also be used for this, so it's perfectly legit?

My conclusion:
1. I agree, should be use longer scrambles (30 moves?)
2.Should be use random scrambles ( not 2-phase)
3.Should be publicly available every sub-35 solution.
Probably not everyone agrees with me, but we must talk about it.

 

[Kit Clement]

I just tried an interesting idea, which proves how it's possible to manipulate the previously used short scrambles.
For example, I use Linus's contested solution.


Inverse: F L2 D' B' D2 // R2 U2 L F2 L' F' U F2 // U' B2 U' L2 D' L2
First, I find a different solution for first 5 moves (F L2 D' B' D2)
1st solution: B D2 R2 U2 F B' R2 D B' D2 (10 moves)
Next 8 moves of the inverse scramble: R2 U2 L F2 L' F' U F2
2nd solution: R' U2 R' F' U F L F2 L' F (10 moves) (of Linus's solution)
Last 6 moves of inverse scramble: U' B2 U' L2 D' L2
3rd solution: D' R2 D' R2 U' B2 U' D ( 8 moves)
So, I have a 28 move solution, 1st, then 2nd, then 3rd:
1st: B D2 R2 U2 F B' R2 D B' D2
2nd: R' U2 R' F' U F L F2 L' F
3rd: D' R2 D' R2 U' B2 U' D
According with the WCA rules, is not same moves of scramble, Linus's explanation can also be used for this, so it's perfectly legit?

My conclusion:
1. I agree, should be use longer scrambles (30 moves?)
2.Should be use random scrambles ( not 2-phase)
3.Should be publicly available every sub-35 solution.
Probably not everyone agrees with me, but we must talk about it.

I would say that by chunking the scramble into three parts, you are deriving your solution from the scrambling algorithm. I feel this is different than using NISS, for example, because in any case of using NISS, you are using the entire scrambling sequence as a transformation, rather than using smaller transformation pieces that you only know because a scrambling algorithm is provided.